Top Michigan Republican has 'unique opportunity' to 'kill' subsidies

When
the Republican majority is seated in the House of Representatives this January,
many have high expectations that they will cut government spending as most of
the candidates promised on the campaign trail. But the tricky question now is:
Where to cut?

Some
energy and environmental experts say they should begin with energy subsidies;
specifically for ethanol.

Ethanol
is a biofuel made mostly from corn in North America and can be used as an
additive to gasoline. In some states, there is a mandated 10% blend with
gasoline; the idea being to lower the amount of oil needed.

But
many experts say this doesn't work.

"Contrary to popular belief, ethanol fuel does little
or nothing to increase our energy security or stabilize fuel prices," wrote Kenneth Green, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Instead, it
will increase greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollutant emissions, fresh
water scarcity, water pollution (both riparian and oceanic), land and ecosystem
consumption, and food prices."

Russ Harding is the senior environmental analyst for the
Mackinac Center for Public Policy and says that ethanol subsidies require a lot
of water, fertilizer and heavy equipment. This wipes out the environmental
gain.

"A
lot of environmentalists liked ethanol initially," said Harding. "But you find
that in order to make it you need a lot of land and a lot of energy."

Harding
says that the corn lobby got Congress to put a tariff on sugar (which can be
used to make more efficient ethanol) and give corn farmers subsidies.

"It
is an extremely well-protected industry."

But
some political experts believe that the new Republican House will be in a
unique position to end ethanol subsidies, or at least make it an issue.

Washington
Examiner
columnist Timothy Carney has
written on this issue recently and believes ending some of these subsidies
would show the American people that Republicans are serious about cutting back
government.

"[Congressman Dave]
Camp (R-Midland) is in line to chair the Ways & Means Committee, which
writes tax law," wrote Carney in an email. "Two of the biggest ethanol
subsidies — the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit and the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff
on imported ethanol — would be under his jurisdiction. He could kill those."

It would require a reversal of course for Camp and others. A look at past votes from Congressman Camp and the Michigan
Congressional delegation reveals that the members have often voted to keep, and
even raise, farm subsidies. In 2004, every Republican member from Michigan
voted for the Bush Administration's national energy
policy which would have added a requirement that gasoline sold in the U.S.
contain a specified volume of ethanol. Other energy policy votes yield similar result.

In
a 2006
press release, Camp was quoted as saying, "With the support of the federal
government, our farmers and manufacturers are building new economic
opportunities, creating innovative solutions that address the nation's energy
needs, and providing consumers with the products that deliver fuel efficiency,
lower emissions, and better performance."

But policy experts disagree.

"[Ethanol] is environmentally destructive and has raised
food prices," said Green.

"In many ways, this is an issue in which the left and the
right find agreement," said Harding. "Unfortunately, many of the Republicans
are even more connected to the farm lobby than the Democrats.